efilismfandomcom-20200216-history
Efilism Vs. Nihilism
There is strong and key distinction between Efilism and Nihilism -- especially commonly-understood or colloquial Nihilism. Basically the Nihilism that stamps VOID onto life and existence - rejects all value, purpose and significance - and/or voids everything as being subjective/irrelevant, and walks away case closed. That sort of reality model is of course erroneous and philosophically inept, and has been depreciated and updated! Objective Value - Simple Efilism has proven and can logically demonstrate that objective value/objective feeling exists. Simply: you can have a false purpose, false belief, false understanding, false idea, false concept. But there is no such thing as a false feeling - there are just good feelings (positive value) and bad feelings (negative value). There is a complete divide between: # Those phenomenological types of consciousness, that derive or posit information as purpose, belief, understanding, ideas, concepts, which can all be confirmed "true or false" # The raw sensation of feelings, which are physical forces generated from chemical reactions, they are not a payload or claim about "truths and falsehoods", and they cannot be refuted, denied, or treated as such. And that's even if for instance: you felt pain by an object that didn't actually hit you, it's true the object didn't hit you, but it cannot then be true you didn't feel the pain. See how it works? A sensation is just fundamentally different from all other cogs, note it actually transcends "understanding" and "misunderstanding". That's because sensation is the real, undeniable, concrete value that is instantiated by the event of consciousness. Every other cog is just an informational, derivative, or suggestive outlier about truth and falsehood that can be called into question. So feeling cannot be put into the pile of all those cogs, it's a categorical error to try, it is not the same thing. The value of conscious feeling exists in the real physical universe, literally no matter what anyone thinks. Objective Value - Advanced DNA life is the incident of deterministic chaos, has no reason to continue existing, serves no need or purpose while doing so. But DNA life is not just any code strung together by careless happenstance of physics - it also the code that invented pain and torture. Since we don't want to commit ourselves to ambiguous babytalk, instead of "bads, pains, ouches", this can be signified as Nociception in biology. And here it will be signified as Negative Valence (NV) - which in affective neuroscience is "objectively negative value", not opinions of bad value. Negative Valence does not rely on the subject to "subjectively opine it with property", because correctly: the property was determined for the subject, not by the subject. Positive Valence and Negative Valence are not dice, and they are not wildcards -- they cannot be indeterminately or arbitrarily decided by the system they are instantiated inside. PV and NV are galvanizing, real physical forces of truly distinct value. And these values are commenced by the universe's material determinism (just like literally everything else) - they are not commenced by any subject's discretional whimsy. These values are not "outside" of reality, they cannot be discounted from reality's equation just because they happen in nerves and brains. It also doesn't matter if they are activated "by" or "as" or "in" non-identical substrata, catalysts, entities, or "subjective" systems -- IE. - One subject has positive valence instantiated by peanutbutter, resulting in relieving nourishment. - One subject has negative valence instantiated by peanutbuter, resulting in anguishing allergies. Because such difference in no way changes the fact that each objective value exists, and exists distinctively and statically (they keep their static values and their separate values) - it's just that they are not instantiated totally identically across subjects. And finally, the fact that the event(s) and value(s) occur in subjects (more accurately called entities) does not refute, invalidate, or change even a single part of what happened. This is the point that the non-concrete (incoherent) idea of "subjective value" has been chopped up and examined as objective configuration in objective terms. Antinatalism and EFILism is based on preventing and eliminating objectively negative value from even having potential to exist. Because life is an objectively negative function. We have reduced the non-concrete tug-o-war of bads and goods, and concluded this fundamental, unchanging, identical objective truth: "Life starts with the need to fix needs, or be seriously harmed." That's the DNA bargain - an inherent negative and inherent jeopardy. At bedrock, it is nothing more than needing to fix your deprivations, or being seriously harmed. Further, you have no possibility of permanently fixing the deprivations, or permanently protecting yourself from them. However: your deprivation and harm is always guaranteed; your satisfaction and safety is never guaranteed. That's the end statement... or one of them. It explicates the entire point, that it is malignantly self-defeating for life to even exist, because life creates all of its own problems and drawback by existing (which includes needing any level of positive value in the first place).'' ''Conversely'': ''If life is prevented, all problem and drawback are also prevented. 1. The loss of all positives is not a drawback, precisely because it was successfully ensured there was no loser. 2. The prevention of a victim still counts, precisely because it was successfully ensured there was no victim. QED: - Prevention of a loss requires absence of a loser - Prevention of a victimization requires absence of a victim ''' - Prevention of a problem requires '''absence of a problem-haver - Prevention of a harm requires absence of a harmed Objective Value - Expert The answer for why you cannot deny the existence and value of feelings and consciousness lies in the "transparency" of consciousness, sentience, feelings, senses and life. "Transparency” is a technical term in the modern philosophy of mind. Consciousness is "transparent" if the system using it cannot, by introspection alone, recognize it as a representation. If consciousness were to become "opaque" (that is, if it were actually possible to "value" or "devalue" it as only a mechanical representation, like Hythloday71 and other nihilists suggest), then we would necessarily lose that exact property of consciousness. Think of it as opening a fridge door to check if the light is on or off, the truth of the answer depends on whether the door is open or shut. So you can probably see the problem: To deny the value of consciousness while being a transparent model of consciousness---and while other transparent models keep existing in the universe---you are using an Analysandum of Opacity argument that reduces consciousness to deniable values, which completely misses the Explicandum and Explicans of Transparency that renders that very Analysandum of opaque value-deniability impossible. Until you establish an Explicandum and Explicans of Opacity in consciousness, like DNA did with Transparency, your Analysanda is essentially nothing more than a failed thought experiment that cannot coincide with reality. Inmendham and Efilism understands this, so we do not attempt to refute consciousness as a mechanically opaque, valueless or deniable representation, this philosophy acknowledges consciousness is a mechanically transparent representation that necessarily maintains undeniable properties of value in order to even objectively exist and function. This demonstration concludes why unconstrained theorizing and unconstrained logic (which is technically called Analysanda) is insufficient to discount the Explicandum and Explicans of objective reality. This crucial distinction is what makes-possible the refutation of people's reductionism, nihilism, agnosticism, subjectivism, and so on. Recall that a representation is transparent if the system using it cannot recognize it as a representation. A world-model active in the brain is transparent if the brain has no chance of discovering that it is a model. A model of the current moment is transparent if the brain has no chance of discovering that it is simply the result of information-processing currently going on in itself. We have arrived at a minimalist concept of consciousness. We have an answer to the question of how the brain moves from an internal world-model and an internal Now-model to the full-blown appearance of a world. The answer is this: If the system in which these models are constructed is constitutionally unable to recognize both the world-model and the current psychological moment, the experience of the present, as a model, as only an internal construction, then the system will of necessity generate a reality tunnel. It will have the experience of being in immediate contact with a single, unified world in a single Now. For any such system, a world appears. If we can solve the One-World Problem, the Now Problem, and the Reality Problem, we can also find the global neural correlate of consciousness in the human brain. There is a specific NCC (neural correlate of consciousness) for forms of conscious content (IE. one for the redness of the rose, another for the rose as a whole, and so on) as well as a global NCC, which is a much larger set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, or all currently active forms of conscious content, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at a given moment. Solving the One-World Problem, the Now Problem, and the Reality Problem involves three steps: 1. Finding a suitable phenomenological description of what it’s like to have all these experiences. 2. Analyzing their contents in more detail (the representational level). 3. Describing the functions bringing about these contents. Discovering the global NCC means discovering how these functions are implemented in the nervous system. This would also allow us to decide which other beings on this planet enjoy the appearance of a world; these beings will have a recognizable physical counterpart in their brains. On the most simple and fundamental level, the global NCC will be a dynamic brain state exhibiting large-scale coherence. It will be fully integrated with whatever generates the virtual window of presence, because in a sense it is this window. Finally, it will have to make earlier processing stages unavailable to high-level attention.